Riverdale Council narrows agricultural zoning, removes by-right large residential clusters

Riverdale City Council voted 4–1 to approve Ordinance 995, amending Title 10, Chapter 8 of the Riverdale City Code to change the permitted uses in the A‑1 and A‑2 agricultural zones and to remove cluster subdivisions as a by‑right use in those zones.

The ordinance, presented by Community Development staff, revises the code language to emphasize traditional agricultural activities in the A‑1 and A‑2 zones and to remove provisions that had allowed large residential cluster subdivisions as a by‑right use in agricultural areas. Councilors approved one amendment during the motion to remove the word “noncommercial” from the line addressing corrals and stables in A‑1, preserving the ability for noncommercial animal keeping on smaller parcels.

Supporters of the ordinance said the change clarifies the city’s land‑use framework and aligns the zoning code with the city’s future land‑use map. Community Development staff explained that the current cluster‑subdivision language had functioned as a “catchall” and sometimes allowed residential development to be shoehorned into agricultural zones without full application of residential standards.

Resident James Pritchard Purine testified during public comment in opposition to the proposed amendment. Purine said his property, annexed from Ogden, had been treated historically as potential development land and that the change “caught me by surprise,” adding that he preferred smaller residential lots and had been working with the city on a potential rezone. Purine also said he opposed the ordinance “because of the wording of cluster subdivision” and described discussions he had had with city staff about rezoning and subdivision options.

City staff responded that the text amendment does not prevent a landowner from seeking a rezone. Community Development staff said a rezone remains a separate, available process that may require a general‑plan amendment if the property’s current future‑land‑use designation differs from the requested zoning. Staff noted that cluster subdivisions as currently written require a minimum of 25 dwelling units and that A‑1 minimum lot size rules mean an applicant would need substantially large acreage (the code discussion cited about 15 acres as typical to meet size thresholds and about 27,000 square feet as the practical minimum lot size under the two‑thirds rule in A‑1).

Several councilors asked for clarity about how the change would affect existing nonconforming uses. Staff advised that existing lawful uses at the time of the change (for example, a cemetery or existing agricultural uses) would become legal nonconforming uses and could remain until discontinued; converting those properties to a new use would require subsequent approvals as applicable.

Council deliberations focused on the balance between protecting agricultural character, preventing incompatible uses, and preserving reasonable rights for existing owners. Councilor Stevens raised questions about examples of cluster developments elsewhere and about whether the change would unfairly limit owners. Councilor Haas and others voiced concern about restricting small‑scale stables on smaller parcels; the council’s adopted amendment removed the word “noncommercial” from the A‑1 corral/stable line so that small parcel animal keeping would remain allowed under the A‑1 standard.

The motion to adopt Ordinance 995 as amended passed 4–1. Councilor Stevens cast the lone no vote.

Looking ahead, staff said the city will incorporate these code changes into a forthcoming comprehensive development code update and that property owners who want residential subdivisions must pursue rezonings and, where required, general‑plan amendments.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting included that a cluster subdivision in the A‑1 zone requires a minimum of 25 units, the A‑1 minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet and cluster subdivisions use a two‑thirds minimum‑lot‑size rule resulting in roughly 27,000 square feet minimum lots, and that a practical acreage threshold cited in discussion was about 15 acres for such a subdivision to be feasible.